Cost And Schedule Analytical

Techniques Development

Final Report

November 30, 1994NAS8-38784

Prepared for:National Aeronautics and Space Administration

George C. Marshall Space Flight Center

Engineering Cost Office

Marshall Space Flight Center, AL 35812

Prepared by:

Science Applications International Corporation

6725 Odyssey DriveHuntsville, AL 35806

.._7

An Employee-OwnedCon'c_ny

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19950016474 2018-06-14T05:29:55+00:00Z

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 2

II. BASIC CONTRACT ACCOMPLISHMENTS .................................................................. 3

1.0 Task I:

1.1

1.2

1.3

REDSTAR Data Base System Maintenance and Expansion ..................... 3

REDSTAR Data Base System Maintenance ............................................... 3

REDSTAR Data Base System Expansion .................................................. 4

NASCOM Data Base Development and Expansion ................................... 5

2.0 Task 2:

2.1

2.2

2.3

Development of Cost Estimating Techniques ............................................. 7

Extension and Improvements to NASCOM ............................................... 8

Development of First Pound Cost CERs and Classical CERs .................. 11

Training of NASA Personnel .................................................................... 12

3.0 Task 3:

3.1

3.2

Development of Schedules, Plans, and Requirements ............................. 13

Schedule Development ............................................................................. 13

Program Planning ..................................................................................... 15

III. ADDITIONAL TASKING ............................................................................................... 16

1.0 Ground Operations Cost Model (GOCM) ............................................................. 16

2.0 PRICE Calibration for NASA Users ..................................................................... 16

3.0 Microgravity Experiments Cost Model (MECM) ................................................. 17

I. INTRODUCTION

This Final Report summarizes the activities performed by Science Applications International

Corporation (SAIC) and Applied Research, Inc (ARI) (which was purchased by, and integrated into,

SAIC in January 1994) under contract NAS8-38784 "Cost and Schedule Analytical Techniques Devel-

opment Contract." This Final Report is in compliance with Attachment J-2, Paragraph B of the con-

tract

This contract provided technical services and products to the Marshall Space Flight Center's

Engineering Cost Office (PP03) and the Program Plans and Requirements Office (PP02) for the period

August 3, 1991 through November 30, 1994. Detailed Monthly Reports were submitted to MSFC

which spelled out each month's specific work performed, deliverables submitted, major meetings con-

ducted, and other pertinent information Therefore, this Final Report will not repeat that level of detail,

but rather, summarize the forty months of contract effort. An executive level summary of accomplish-

ments is provided in Table 1

REDSTAR Data Base

• Doubled document count from 8,000 to 16,000

• Developed state-of-art, FoxPro indexing system

• Installed extensive key word search capability

• Established seven Special Collections

NASCOM Hard Copy Data Base

• Increased contents by 50% to 90 aerospace projects

• Published 2 updates of data base

• Added new features: sample problems, data base

averages, improved documentation

NASCOM Automated Data Base

• Conceived, developed, programmed in C++

• Delivered operational copies to all NASA Centers

• Developed and delivered User's Manual

• Provided training to NASA personnel

NASCOM Cost Model

• Totally restructured and programmed in C++• Delivered initial NASCOM Cost Model

• Developed NASCOM Cost Model's User's Guide

• Contains many innovative features

Complexity Generators

• Eliminated subjective engineering judgment

• Provide traceable, repeatable, documented factors

Program Planning

• Wrote five Guideline papers

• Developed project implementation plans

• Prepared data requirements packages

Schedules

• Added 1,300 schedule documents to REDSTAR

• Established Schedule Notebooks

• Developed Schedule Template Evaluation Model

(STEM)

• Developed STEM User's Manual

• Developed Schedule and Cost Optimization Model

(SACOM)

• Developed SACOM User's Manual

• Developed schedule and logic networks

NASA Computer Connectivity• On NASA network via T I line

• Became on-line with MSFC Repository

• Provided file transfer, and printing at NASA

Other Analytical Techniques

• Developed Microgravity Experiment Cost Model

(MECM)

• Developed MECM User's Manual

• Developed Ground Operations Cost Model

(GOCM)

• Developed GOCM User's Manual

• Developed PRICE System Technical Briefs

Special Project Support

• Space Station Redesign Study

• Access to Space Study

• New Ways of Doing Business (NWODB) Study

• Hundreds of Quick Response Actions for MSFC,

NASA Headquarters, and other centers

Table 1. Summary of Contract Accomplishments

II. BASIC CONTRACT ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The following sections are broken out by the three MSFC major statement of work task areas

and provide insight into the work performed in each area over the life of this contract.

1.0 Task 1: REDSTAR Data Base SystemMaintenance and Expansion

During the course of this contract, the REDSTAR Data Base was reorganized, doubled in size,

and upgraded to professional library standards. In addition to improvements to the expansion and

maintenance of the REDSTAR Data Base, SAIC was instrumental in a major redesign and improve-

ment of the NASCOM Data Base (NASCOM-DB). The hardcopy version of NASCOM-DB was greatly

improved with the inclusion of example problems, data base averages, clear project programmatic and

technical descriptions, and a step-by-step explanation of the NASCOM-Data Base normalization pro-

cess. SAIC also conceived, designed, and developed the Automated NASCOM-DB (NASCOM-DB).

This data base allows instant retrieval of any data in the NASCOM-DB and is available to all of NASA.

1.1 REDSTAR Data Base System Maintenance

SAIC provided approximately 1,000 square feet of floor space, 91 file cabinets, and 27 book-

cases for the REDSTAR Data Base. The REDSTAR Data Base was under the management of a mas-

ters' degreed librarian who is listed in the current publication of Who's Who Among National Technical

Libraries. Not only has the sheer volume of REDSTAR source documentation increased twofold in the

last three years (average yearly document entry rate of nearly 2,700), but library organizational stan-

dards, document retrievability and accountability, and interfaces to nationwide document repositories

are now on par with any professional library of this nature in the country.

The most valuable of historical documentation is worthless if it can not be retrieved from hard

copy of automated filing systems. To this end, SAIC has instituted and maintained a high degree of

professional library standards in its management of REDSTAR. When the data base was transitioned to

SAIC, the Library Reference System (LRS) was non-standardized and in need of updating. The LRS,

then coded in dBase III, could not be queried on document keywords, search routines required an in-

depth knowledge of dBase code, and data characterization was incomplete in that only a limited num-

ber of NASA programs were on the existing data characterization form.

SAIC modernized the LRS and thus enhanced the utility of REDSTAR. The data characteriza-

tion sheet or "cut sheet", which is the hard copy representation of the LRS's electronic query matrix,

was greatly expanded. (See Figure 1-1 for portions of the updated "cut-sheet".) It now includes about

50 additional missions and attached payloads. A host of topics in the field of management and engi-

neering efficiencies that are of current and future interest to NASA such as, NWODB, Skunkworks,

total quality management, and concurrent engineering have also been added. Further, data can now

characterized as pertaining to ground, launch or mission operations. These recent updates to the "cut

sheet" provided a more comprehensive way to enter and retrieve data from REDSTAR. SAIC also

established a keyword REDSTAR LRS search capability. This powerful tool is easily maintained and

allows data retrieval by simply keying in a one-word topic. SAIC and NASA personnel were provided

with a list of keywords that were standardized for use in the LRS routines.

The updated LRS was programmed in the FoxPro data base application. Because FoxPro oper-

ates in the Windows environment, REDSTAR's LRS search and retrieval commands are now "point

REDSTAR DOCUMENT DATA INPUT FORM

Er_ Dm

REDSTAROOGUME_ NUdE R -- --

Oocumwd tD

Docurrr_ _y_._

rl_tm_ D _vmum n s_kmu ss ou m_

PROQRAM IY R_ {OI mONE)

N)r'l _mml (Ul0 _mmr_ IBO _nm_&U_mme

M_SON T_E _mc_ O_

iE) O &_ Om'_ P) OPm_ (a O & *nOO hI&PWI_V

S_CRJFr E_ENT IC_ ONEI

rlpoPs D ET 0 SaC_ MmUME TYPE _ AlI_Rm_el_pm)

&Y.8_d4J.E_d.

pJ_p RO_E LLANT

OSEI_8 EIVTmRAIK_. _E ST _

C_E CKOUT

mC_R_M U _A_B_ENT

a_TW_RE .nVST_TNT_DWAFE_ST B_ TmT_x=S

8vsrM ENa_EmI_O&_l_amXTK_q

1OOUNO

- WEAPON SYSTEMS

• OER ENER_L)

- C_T MODELS

C_E_S Cm_m

_ FAClU IE S

I.EC'_C_ WAA_A_!MInimS

_A_

_lm

- FUI_C_NO _OF_LE

INHERrrANCE

• M_JOR CH_NOEGBOL_m L_ U_H a_s Ac'nvmss

RRESUmRmSOH NASA F_CtUI_E S

GR3UND om _GE N_q& ) PHASE

_qDUNO om NSE

e,n_nnA'n Cw • _SET SO_EOUI.ESL_WCHF/CUT _S WI_m_LOAD mocmsmRRO_ LJ.ANT LOADING

m_GES*F_Ty_I, RN G J_l_ _ OPI_T_

C'SEWT m_Q

M _Lla_l _lJ_ DATA ANALYg|

* _lqOIm_K_O DATA RE OUClON_. hlAN_)W E n

- C_1_1ERC IA U ZA T ION _fAC_¢I_tACTT _ | _III_U N O W_U S

CONTR_ CTOn Mnl,ON O_ENm_L)

_TmA_RS mCC

- mRNr_ Om Raoolcs

'_ms

mna

CO_CUF_ENTm_E R_QEgQN. 11[_COE; T

JUST_N._E W_E _rToRv

kt_ Eq_LS PLA NN_O

NWOOe( OmE _L)_OCUm_ENT

S<UNK _O_KS_3U

_I_TUO| O_T nC_cao_

BCLS_ANS_

mwmmCeUL SO_ 0. ms

mo_

irmu¢Tumm

Figure 1-1 "Cut Sheet" Provides Comprehensive

Data Point Characterization

and click" with search times

nearly instantaneous. Typing

in dBase code and waiting up

to 3 minutes for search re-

suits are a thing of the past.

This dynamic increase in

search speed is even more

important when one consid-

ers the rate at which the size

of the REDSTAR Data Base

is increasing.Another library

service that SAIC has intro-

duced to this contract is the

use of both local and national

information centers as

sources of aerospace infor-

mation. For example, we

have established working re-

lationships with the historians

and archivist at MSFC, JPL,

Goddard Space Flight Center

(GSFC), the University of

Alabama in Huntsville, and the Air University Air Command and Staff College at Maxwell Air Force

Base. Through these sources, as well as the Redstone Scientific Information Center (RSIC) and MSFC

Repository, we have obtained much valuable historical data in support of the CSATD contract. We are

on-line with the MSFC Repository's automated data retrieval system and developed search strategies

of this large information center from the 486 PC in REDSTAR.

Also coded in FoxPro was the REDSTAR document checkout program. Checkout procedures

were standardized and implemented. The REDSTAR document number, document title, the borrower's

name, and the date of checkout were input into the electronic file. When documents were returned, the

date of return was input into the checkout routine.

The REDSTAR inventory was used to ensure document accountability, to restructure the con-

tents of each filing cabinet to make room for future documents, and to assess the feasibility of creating

new special collections for data of the same subject. On completion of each end of the year REDSTAR

inventory, a complete to-date listing of the contents of REDSTAR was published and sent to resource

and planning groups throughout NASA.

1.2 REDSTAR Data Base System Expansion

In the past three years, the REDSTAR document count has increased from about 8,000 to nearly

16,000. This statistic is astounding when one considers that SAIC has managed REDSTAR only 3 of

its 23-year existence.

For each new data collection effort, in-house sources were reviewed and contacts made to

likely NASA and industry sources for information and leads to relevant data. This approach has worked

well for SAIC overthepastthreeyears.Forexample,ourcollectionof SpaceStationFreedom,CRRESandOrbitalManeuveringVehicle(OMV) projectdatawasobtainedthroughourestablishedrelation-shipswith personnelin theseNASA projectoffices.Approximately500documentspertainingto these3 projectswereobtainedbeforetheprojectoffices wereclosedor relocated.Figure 1-2 containsalisting of someof thedatacollectioncontactsmadefor MSFCin thepastthreeyears.

Still otherdatawasobtainedby consultingtheLRS, RSIC,the MSFClibrary andrepository,DIALOG InformationServices,NASA ScientificandTechnicalAerospaceReports,theDefenseTech-nical InformationCenter,theNationalTechnicalInformationCenter,theNationalSpaceScienceDataCenterandotheravailabledatabases.

In thepastthreeyearswemadenumerousdatacollectiontrips including thoseto GSFC,JPL,KSC,JSC,NASA Headquarters,Reston,CrystalCity andE1Segundo,California.Thesetrips werefruitful in that we obtainedover25 missioncostsandtechnicaldatapackagesin sufficient detail toincludethemin theNASCOM-DataBaseandassociatedcostmodels.

ruseREDSTARSpecialCollections,establishedby SAIC, allowedtheanalystto convenientlype-

dataof thesamesubjectmatter.ThisallowsaREDSTARusertogo to oneor twofile cabinetsthatcontainthe majority of the REDSTARdataon a

Company, Contact, Data Requested

Aero Astro, Inc., Melanla Horn, ALEXIS & HETE

Aero Astro, Inc., Richard Warner. ALEXIS & HETE

Aero Astro, Inc., Richard Warner, ALEXIS & HETE, 2

BMDO Edwards Aidoros Base, Jason Fetga, MSTI

Boeing Marketing, Seattle, Barbara Murphy, Boeing 777Boeing. Diane Copenhaver. IUS launch cost

Boeing, Roy Berg, Minuteman II costFairchtld Aircraft. Don Johnson, Gaowarn question

Fairchild Space, Bob Bartlett. EUVE

Fairchild Space, Tom Moser, EUVE

General Dynamics, John Silverstain, Titan IV Centaur launch costsGeneral Electric, Dave Lane, Engine cost dataGSFC Historian, Keith Koehler, document into

GSFC, Bill Trageser. EUVE & XTEGSFC, Bob Mails, TOMS

GSFC, George Berth, TRDSGSFC, Jim Barrowrnan, EUVE & XTEGSFC, Jim Manion, EOS

GSFC, Mike Wailand, GOES

GSFC, Mildred Saad, UARS

GSFC, Paul Caruso, ISTP

GSFC, Steve Dobroseilski, METSAT

GSFC, Vicki Coray, get on mailing list of GSFC document

Honeywell Library. Linda Tabor, EOS computer costsHoneywell Inc,. Don Lee, FEWS

Hughes A_rcrall, Uldis Lapins, HS-376 intoHughes Space & Communications Group, Ed Limburgh, UFO

Hughes Space & Communications Group. JerryAdams, UFOIBM, Mark Michrana. Shuttle & SSF On.Board Processing

Innotach Aviation, Larry Nelly, Geowam question

Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Robert Metzgar, MSTIJPL Archives, Ju¢te Raiz, JPL spacecraft document lists

JSC History Office, Joey Kuhlman. POP s document into

JSC Lamtxla Point Office, Joe Mailoy, get on mailing list for documentLockheed Research & Development Division, Don Bane, CRSSLockheed Research & Development Division, Dr. Ralph Kuiper, CRSS

MacDonald Douglas, Fred Totlay. F-15E landing gear cost

MacDonald Douglas, Jim Mayars, PAM, Delta Stage II launch cost

Martin Marietta Astro Space, Don Brown, MilstarMartin Marietta Astro Space, Jerry Miranda, Satellite Processing

Martin Marietta Astro Space, Marvin Kravitz, DSCS-3

Martin Marietta Astro Space, Walt Woessr'ier. DSCS.3

Martin Marrieta, Larry Price, Transtaga launch costMorton Thiokol, Don Wilson, Castor nozzle costMorton Thiokol, Jack McCommons, STAR 30E, 48B cost

Morton Thiokol, Jack McCommons, Star 48, 37 motor cost

Morton Thiokot,Dennis Walstrum, Star 17 motor cost

MSFC, Garry Hall, EASE costsMSFC, Katlh Helner, AXAFNASA Chief Historian, Dr. Launius

OSC, Chris Schade, Pegasus & Taurus costOSC. Jeff Campbell, TOS launch COst

Phillips Laboratory, Jim McClellan, MSTIPratt & Whitney, Mark Sullivan. Engine cost data

Pratt & Whitney, Nancy Colaguod, RL10-A-4

Rolls-Royce, Robert Stangarone, Engine cost dataSpectrum Astro, Ray Raw, MSTI

Tecolola, Mike Mahonay, Conestago cost

Teledyne Systems Co., Roger Gilrea_, MilstarTRW Space & Electronics Group, Susan Brough, DSP

U, S. Navy, Dick Cottman, UFO

U. S. Navy, Steve Archer, UFOUS Navy Research Lab, Paul Regeon, Clementlne

Figure 1-2 SAIC Has Many Data Collection

Contacts Across the Country

specific subject. Special collections were set up for

NASCOM-Data Base data points, schedules, Pro-

gram Operating Plans (POPs), Space Station,

launch vehicles, solid rocket motor, Shuttle

projects, unmanned spacecraft, manned spacecraft,and the External Tank.

SAIC placed great emphasis on quick and

accurate responses to sudden data needs and re-

quests by MSFC. We efficiently provided rapid

response data and analyses for studies such as: New

Ways of Doing Business (NWODB), Space Sta-

tion Freedom Redesign, Access to Space (includ-

ing single and two-stage-to-orbit configurations),

Spartan conversion project, small launch vehicle

data collection, and National Launch System

(NLS). These quick turnaround responses consisted

of data set formulation, CER development, cost

comparisons and trends, spreadsheet development,

cost driver identification, and generation of hard-

ware estimates.

1.3 NASCOM Data Base Development and

Expansion

The NASCOM-DB consisted of 62 space-

craft project cost and technical analyses when SAIC

was awarded the CSATD contract. SAIC has ana-

4

lyzed 42 projects for the NASCOM-DB, including new analysis for 28 projects and the re-analysis of

14 of the original data points to provide component level visibility. In three years SAIC was respon-

sible for 42 of the 90 total NASCOM-DB projects or 47%.

The NASCOM-DB is essentially the very best and most complete aerospace project cost, tech-

nical and programmatic data from the REDSTAR Data Base. SAIC published Version 2.0, in January

of 1993, and Version 2.1, in December 1993 and distributed them to all NASA centers.

Enhancement of the NASCOM-DB was a dynamic process at SAIC. We ensured that the con-

sensus opinion PP03 as to the proper ground rules and process have adhered to in our effort to continu-

ally improve the NASCOM-DB. Individual study efforts including verification, modification, alterna-

tives presentation, and joint working sessions with PP03 have consumed approximately 2,000 man-

hours of analytical effort. This entire effort was extremely successful, producing a consistent, standard-

ized NASCOM-DB methodology.

The NASCOM-DB "data was normalized to a consistent set of ground rules and assumptions

that govern the presentation of three separate and distinct sets of cost analyses ("As Reported", "Mod-

eled" and "Synthetic Wraps Applied"). All historical cost data within the NASCOM-DB were analyzed

for inclusions and exclusions and then converted to a standard constant year dollar from real year dollar

project cost reports. All technical data was normalized to consistent terms and units.

The WBS for all NASCOM-DB projects included the actual project WBS at lower levels, yet

applied generic accumulators at the subsystem and system level. This WBS normalization approach

affords the MSFC cost engineer the option of using specific analogies or more generic elements when

developing subsystem data sets for cost estimates. Component, subsystem, and system level mass

properties which are all converted to pounds, conform to the same WBS.

The design approach for all NASCOM-DB data points is either prototype or protoflight. This

distinction has predictable impact on project cost and is reported as such in the "As Reported" data.

Consistent handling and normalization for the cost associated with the dedicated test article (prototype

approach) versus all cost associated with test and refurbishment of the protoflight article was strictly

maintained in the SAIC-produced NASCOM-DB.

Stratification of the NASCOM-DB was by mission or project type, i.e., manned spacecraft,

unmanned spacecraft, and launch vehicle stages and liquid rocket engines. Also separately included

were scientific instruments grouped by classes based on the specific function of each.

The final step in the NASCOM-DB methodology was the calculation of first pound costs. In

NASCOM-DB terminology, first pound costs are the cost for the first pound of hardware. Statistically,

first pound costs are the y-intercept values for a power curve equation, defined by the formula: y =

ax^b, where y equals costs, x equals weight, b equals the slope of the curve, and a equals the y-intercept

or the first pound cost. This formula requires that the b-value be known before the equation can be

algebraically transformed and exercised. B-value determination is relative to the type of aerospace

hardware, and mechanical/electrical composition. SAIC introduced subsystem unique b-values in the

publication of NASCOM-DB Version 2.0 after exhaustive study and research. These unique b-values

now reflect a logical and verifiable impact on a-value calculation, attributable to the degree to which

economies of scale are exhibited. Technical, contractual, and programmatic resumes containing cost

driving parameters, major milestone, known inheritance and hardware compatibility, and major pro-

5

grammaticinfluenceswereestablished(if required)or reverified and maintained for each data point in

the NASCOM-DB. These resumes were presented in project and subsystem form, and follow the

NASCOM-DB cost and weight WBS.

SAIC created an innovative new tool with which all NASCOM-DB information can be electronically

retrieved. The Automated NASCOM-DB (NASCOM-ADB) is a user friendly data retrieval tool that

operates in the Microsoft Windows environment and is coded in C++. The NASCOM-ADB allows

users to electronically search, filter, and retrieve cost and technical data at any level presented in the

hardcopy NASCOM-DB. The data level selection screen from the NASCOM-ADB is shown in Figure

1-7. The data contained in the NASCOM-ADB is consistent with the data contained in the NASCOM-

DB, Version 2.1. NASCOM-ADB was distributed to all NASA Centers in December 1993.

The NASCOM-ADB was segregated into eight data base files including: Structures; Electrical Power;

Command, Command, Communication and Data Handling; Attitude Control; Environmental Control

and Life Support; systems Level; and, Miscellaneous. These data files include over 135 different fields

of information for searching and filtering including 11 cost, 3 weight, and 121 performance, technical

and programmatic fields.

Numerous special features contained in the NASCOM-ADB combine to make it a very convenient and

useful tool for establishing cost estimating data sets. Search results can be saved and reopened to

append or delete data points. Data can be easily copied and pasted into other Windows applications.

Data can be printed to any printer. Font styles and sizes of the data can be changed. Columns and rows

of data can be hidden from view or from being printed. The mission field and the WBS item field can

be "frozen" on the screen to be viewed at all times while scrolling through the data outside the display

boundary. A "Filter Reporter" shows what filters were used to complete the search. A Help Index is

provided to supply information about any data point (program) of interest.

2.0 Task 2: Development of Cost Estimating Techniques

While this task is of equal importance to the REDSTAR Data Base maintenance and expansion

task, the work performed on the cost estimating task has a more profound and visible effect on the cost

analysis results produced by the Engineering Cost Office. SAIC's experience in developing innovative

and defensible cost estimating techniques for NASA was directly applied to completing the initial

version of the NASCOM Cost Model.

SAIC's cost estimating techniques development efforts for other NASA customers increased

our NASA experience and understanding and provided synergistic efforts that benefited the Engineer-

ing Cost Office and the Program Plans and Requirements Office. For example, the SAIC development

of the Microgravity Experiments Cost Model (MECM) led to three cost effective innovations for PP02

and PP03. The synergistic MECM activities are: (1) The shell of the MECM model was used to de-

velop the NASCOM-Lite program in slightly over a month. To develop this powerful tool from scratch

would have taken many months. (2) The development of the schedule estimating portion of MECM

using microgravity schedule templates was the precursor for the Schedule Template Evaluation Model

(STEM). (3) The cost and schedule integration techniques used in the MECM were used in the devel-

opment of the Schedule and Cost Optimization Model.

6

2.1 Extensions and Improvements To NASCOM

The NASCOM Cost Model is an automated cost model that provides computer access to the

NASCOM-DB to allow cost engineers to select most analogous data points for estimating DDT&E,

flight unit cost, and integration cost elements. The NASCOM Cost Model relates the technical and

programmatic aspects of a space or ground based element to its estimated cost. The model is capable of

estimating cost at any level of definition (Phase A through Phase C/D), and at any level of detail (total

project to component level).

As a place-holder until the NASCOM Cost Model was on line, SAIC developed and delivered

a precursor model called NASCOM-Lite. This model was completed in May 1994 and training pro-

vided to MSFC users at that time. In August 1994, an updated User's Manual was delivered to NASA

and a training class was provided by SAIC to NASA Headquarters Comptroller Office personnel in

Washington. NASCOM Lite is versatile, automated, user friendly, and data backed. It was Microsoft

Excel based for use on Macintosh or PC computers. The model allows component or subsystem level

cost estimating based on the NASCOM Data Base and using either data base averages or a specific data

point (analogy estimating). This model, unlike the NASCOM Cost Model, requires user-defined com-

plexity factors as inputs. It contains a thru-put option for D&D, system test hardware, and/or flight unit

cost which may be exercised if appropriate. NASCOM Lite automatically calculates system level or

"wraps" costs. It includes a schedule estimating capability and shows results in real or user-defined

fixed year funding spreads.

At completion of the current contract the automated NASCOM Cost Model Windows-based

shell was completed and delivered to MSFC. Many of the NASCOM Complexity Generators were also

completed and delivered to MSFC. The automated NASCOM Cost Model provides the capabilities

shown in Table 2-1.

SAIC's innovative concept of NASCOM Complexity Generators brings MSFC's cost model-

ing capabilities on par with any commercially available cost model (i.e. PRICE and SEER). The major

advantages of this approach over the commercial models are (1) the data base used to develop the

NASCOM Complexity Generators is known and consists strictly of NASA and Air Force aerospace

• On-line access to all NASCOM-DB data

• Integrated and operational Complexity Gen-erators (subsystem and component levels)

• User defined production quantity and quantitynext higher assembly

• Automatic or user defined application ofintegration costs

• The ability to throughput costs, enter userdefined CERs, or percentage cost down to alower WBS level

• A user defined WBS with an unlimited num-ber of levels

• Automated generation of output reports

Table 2-1 NASCOM Capabilities

hardware (unlike commercial models whose data

bases and methodologies consists of little space

hardware and many non-government programs); (2)

the difficult, uncertain, time consuming, and costly

process of calibrating the commercial models is

built into the NASCOM Complexity Generator

design; and (3) the knowledge that the MSFC cost

engineers have about the programs in the

NASCOM-DB can be directly applied to the use

of Complexity Generators.

The Complexity Generator was smoothly

integrated into the NASCOM Cost Model estimat-

ing process by simply being an alternative to the

use of engineering judgment in developing corn-

plexity factors. The MSFC engineer may choose to use a Complexity Generator or a user defined

complexity for each CER used in an estimate at the subsystem or component level. If the user chooses

to use a Complexity Generator, a screen similar to the one shown in Figure 2-1 will be shown. The top

half of the screen will display the performance parameters that are included in the generator. The

middle section of the screen displays the programmatic parameters that have been normalized from the

data base. The bottom portion of the complexity Generator screen shows the Design and Development

(D&D) and flight unit complexity values derived from the performance and programmatic inputs.

Power Generation Complexity GeneratorPerformance Measures

i w.,..,i I.ow.ro="m-"our"I

I Specification i

Programmatic Measures

Heritage I_'

Interfaces t_ '

Experience _l

New Deslgn_

DDT&E UnitComplexiW _ ComplexiW

..... : :h ¸ h=d_= 5 ¸¸ i i =! h ¸¸ dt ¸¸ _:t

Figure 2-1 Complexity Generators Subsystem Example

When an analogous data

point is chosen from the

NASCOM-DB, the values

shown in the performance and

programmatic portions of the

screen reflect the complexity of

that data point (or the average

of several data points if mul-

tiple data points are chosen). If

none of the complexity vari-

ables are changed the complex-

ity factors for D&D and flight

unit will equal 1.0. This will

give the same result as using the

NASCOM-DB to calculate an

assumed slope "a-value" and

using a user defined complex-

ity of 1.0. If one or more of the complexity variables are changed to more closely represent the com-

plexity of the hardware to be estimated, the complexity factors will change accordingly.

The NASCOM Complexity Generators were based to a degree on a methodology developed for

JPL called Cost Complexity Relationships (CCRs). The CCRs are more similar to the classical CER

development approach where least squares regression methods are used to develop a cost estimating

equation. They differ from normal CERs in that the complexity of each data point was normalized into

several categories and removed from the cost. The remaining cost is said to be the "null complexity

cost" and was used in a weight based regression. To estimate a new project, the weight based equation

was used and the complexity of the new project was added back using the same factors used in the

normalization. This approach will not work with the NASCOM Cost Model without some modifica-

tion due to the "first pound" cost estimating methodology and the selection of most analogous data

points. SAIC's five step process used to develop the existing Complexity Generators is described be-

low.

STEP 1: Define Categories. The parameters that are appropriate for the Complexity Genera-

tors were identified. These parameters vary between subsystems. Most of the programmatic param-

eters were consistent between subsystem classes, but the technical parameters always vary.

The technical categories are parameters that can be measured or identified based on the design.

Examples of technical parameters used in the NASCOM Complexity Generators include: weight, out-

put power, solar array surface area, number of transmitters, bandwidth, level of redundancy, battery

life, specificationlevel, constructionmethod,and storagecapacity.The programmaticcategoryin-cludesparametersthatarenotaseasilymeasured.Examplesof theprogrammaticparametersinclude:inheritance,technology,new design,testing level, technologyreadinesslevel, designlife, require-mentschanges,experience,scheduleimpacts,andinterfaces.

STEP 2: Establish Category Relationships. This step in the Complexity Generator develop-

ment process involved the application of regression analysis techniques to define the "curve" that best

fits each of the complexity parameters used in a particular generator. Our experience developing the

JPL CCRs proved invaluable in this process. The range of possible values for each of the complexity

parameters was assigned a weighting factor based on its affect on the total cost of the element. Rela-

tionships were determined using regression methods, experience, and engineering judgment. The types

of equations used include: linear functions, logarithmic functions, exponential functions, step func-

tions, and combinations of functions. An example of the application of these multiple functions can be

seen in Figure 2-2.

STEP 3: Determine "Null" Cost Equation. The determination of the "null" cost equation

used the same approach developed for JPL. The complexity was normalized out of thedata base using

the category relationships established in STEP 2. This step often required specific data collection and

analysis to determine why the nor-

malization of select programs are

Exponential Function

Req. Changes

Step Function

ill

Battery Type

Req. Changes

Perf ormance Memsur

Bat to rl¢ Type

Progra mmnU c Moll lures

( TR' )

Mgmt Levels

/

Amp-Hours 1

Experience )

Packaging )

Linear Function

Management Levels

Figure 2-2 Complexity Element Relationship Example

not behaving as predicted. We

found that "outliners" in this ap-

proach can be explained and cor-

rected by additional data collec-

tion and analysis.

STEP 4: Test, Validate,

and Document. Before any of

the cost complexity relationships

were used in the NASCOM Cost

Model, they were tested by SAIC

using actual data not included in

the development process. After

thoroughly testing the generators

the documentation was devel-

oped. The documentation includethe data base used and the statis-

tical validity of each of the com-

plexity parameters and the "null"

cost equation. It includes validity

ranges of all parameters and rec-ommendations of best results of

all parameters and recommenda-tions of best areas in which to use

the generator.

9

STEP 5: Incorporation Into The NASCOM Model. The final step in the development of a

NASCOM Complexity Generator was including it in the NASCOM Cost Model. This process in-

volved adding the complexity equations to the NASCOM Cost Model and adding the normalization

data for each data point into NASCOM-ADB. Both of these are required for the Complexity Generator

process to work in the NASCOM Cost Model "first pound" cost environment.

2.2 Development of First Pound Cost CERs and Classical CElls

Very often homogenous cost data for similar NASA hardware does not exist because of varied

cost reporting formats, differences in contract types, budget and scheduling constraints, redesigns or

major engineering changes, and refocused mission requirements. The first pound cbst estimating ap-

proach was developed to allow CER development with one or few data points due to this non-homoge-

neous data.

In the past three years SAIC has developed many CERs for NASA and improved and expanded

the NASCOM-DB which is used to create CERs for NASA. We used the first pound cost methodology

for the majority of the CERs produced for the Engineering Cost Office using the NASCOM-DB. We

used classical CER approaches for many special analyses for MSFC. We also used classical regression

methods for the development of the complexity functions in the Complexity Generators and for the

development of all the CERs in the MECM model.

The development of a first pound costs CER required meticulous data analyses and normaliza-

tion. These data were normalized to a set of ground rules consistent across the entire NASCOM-DB.

Six major stratifications of the NASCOM-DB exist. They are: manned spacecraft, unmanned earth

orbital spacecraft, unmanned planetary spacecraft, launch vehicle stages, liquid rocket engines, and

scientific instruments. The economy of scale slope of b-value is selected from a table of values specific

to subsystem type. This table was derived by SAIC after analyzing over 1,000 Classical CERs devel-

oped for all NASA centers over the past 15 years.

SAIC has structured NASCOM-DB first pound cost CERs such that they may be used in a

variety of ways. Analog estimates may be created by using the weight of the hardware to be estimated

and the most analogous NASCOM-DB data point a-value in the first pound cost equation (cost = a * ^

b). We also created tables of data points within each of the six NASCOM-DB data classes.

The first pound cost CER methodology is consistent with the SAIC-developed NASCOM Com-

plexity Generator. The results of any NASCOM-DB first pound cost calculation, or least squares mul-

tiplicative, additive error, or "dummy variable" CER can be adjusted by any of the components of the

Complexity Generator. An example is the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) curve recently devel-

oped for MSFC and shown in Figure 2-3. The trend shown in this curve allows adjustments for CER-

estimated cost relative to the availability of the technology to be used in the hardware to be estimated.

In addition to the first pound costs estimating techniques, SAIC developed classical CERs in

support of the NLS study, Access to Space, MECM cost model, Space Station Redesign, and rapid

response items. PRC-Reg, GSFC-Reg, and Excel are some of the regression packages used by SAIC

analysts. In fact we modified the program code for both PRC-Reg and GSFC-Reg to improve the

output format and printing capabilities of these regression tools. In these and other related efforts,

SAIC analysts employed standard methods to evaluate and verify all CER results such as the standard

10

TRL 3

100%

7o_

20%

I _ CODE R Cm! Trend _ NASA/MSFC Pto)ecO_s [

I

TRL 8 "(3

TRL 9

I I I I I I I ! I I I

2 3 4 5 6 7 R 9 |0 II 12

TIME SPAN (YEARS)

Figure 2-3 Technology Readiness Level (TRL) Example

error, the "t" statistic,

the "F" test, correla-

tion coefficient, etc.

The final

steps in the SAIC ap-

proach to classical

CER developmentwas to determine re-

sults, draw conclu-

sions and completedocumentation. Con-

tained in the docu-

mentation of CER

development are the

data points used, complete definitions of the cost content of the CER, the data analysis results, graphi-

cal display of the CERs with labeled data points and curve fit lines, and conclusions with CER recom-

mendations and CER applicability ranges.

2.3 Training of NASA Personnel

The complex nature of the cost estimating models and techniques developed under this contract

call for comprehensive documentation and training. The importance of the results derived from these

models make it essential that users are knowledgeable of the model capabilities, limitations, and as-

sumptions made during development.

SAIC has provided this type of documentation on numerous occasions in the performance of

this contract. Documentation examples are listed in Table 2-2.

• Updated NASCOM-DB documentation• User's Guide for NASCOM-ADB• User's Guide and a two volume set of model documentation for MECM• User's Guide and documentation for GOCM• User's Guide for the STEM

Table 2-2 SAIC Developed Documentation

Having a well written, complete set of documentation for a cost model is often not

adequate information to get a fast start in using the tool. For this reason we prepared and presented

training material for several of the models developed under the CSATD contract. Table 2-3 lists some

examples of NASA training performed by SAIC.

The SAIC provided training included hands-on computer use, training presentations, example

problems illustrating cost and schedule estimating techniques, and handout material with quiz prob-

lems.

11

• Two day training session on the NASCOM-DB and NASCOM-ADB• Two classes of one half day training in the use of the MECM cost model• Training session on the development approach and usesof the NASCOM-Lite model• NASA Headquarters training on the NASCOM-DB, NASCOM-ADB, and

NASCOM-Lite

Table2-3 SAIC NASA Training

3.0 Task 3: Development of Schedules, Plans and Requirements

SAIC greatly expanded the Schedules, Plans, and Requirements task under the CSATD contract. We

placed greater emphasis on the schedule analysis by initiating an aggressive program resulting in the

accumulation of almost 1,300 documents containing historical aerospace schedules, establishment of a

major Schedule Collection in REDSTAR, creation of a Schedule Notebook, and development of auto-

mated schedule models.

SAIC also has expanded the program planning support role. Work included the development of

implementation and project plans, Guidelines development, and WBS and logic network preparation.

We provided independent reviews and assessments of NASA program planning, procurement and tech-

nical management documents.

3.1 Schedule Development

Our scheduling skills were demonstrated in the CSATD contract by the development of sched-

ules for the Space Station Hab Module, SEI, Spartan Missile, Nuclear Propulsion Testing and four

different schedules for the Access to Space Study. Further, we analyzed the NASA Strategic Plan and

pointed out schedule inconsistencies as well as developed a NASA "new start" schedule and a long

range launch schedule for the plan. SAIC also developed a presentation on schedule slip factors for

PP02 and prepared numerous letters which were sent by MSFC to project offices and major aerospace

contractors requesting historical schedule data.

New documents containing historical schedule data were obtained from NASA individual con-

tacts, other government agencies, and hardware development contractors. The new schedules, along

with existing ones, were made into separate Schedule Collection section of REDSTAR. Additionally,

an extensive Schedule Notebook of over 1,000 schedules on 77 aerospace programs was developed

that contained all the basic schedules collected. The schedules were categorized according to twelve

classifications (unmanned vehicle systems, solid motors, etc.) provided by PP02. Using this data base

SAIC developed historical schedule templates for project categories that indicate typical or averageschedule duration between milestones.

Under the contract, SAIC also developed charts on changes in NASA processes and their im-

pact on NWODB. These types of data were researched by SAIC for their impact on NASA program

planning. We also reviewed the literature to identify projects where major successes have been ob-

tained in the development of reduced schedule development time.

SAIC developed the Schedule Template Evaluation Model (STEM) which is a dynamic

model that was based on historical schedule data. It is operational and two versions of a User's Guide

12

havebeenpublishedby SAIC. STEMallowsthecreationof new project generic schedules using the

historical data base inherent in the model, or it allows the user to manipulate milestones to develop his/

her own schedules. An example template screen from STEM is shown in Figure 3-1.

-W ...... template,xls ..... ....

Manned Lab= Major Reviewu

ATP PDR CDR Del Launch

Spacelab Jun-74 Mar-76 Feb-78 Feb-82 Nov-83

0 21 44 92 113

Skylab Orbital Aug-69 Nov-69 Sep-70 Sep-72 May-73

Workshop _ 0 3 13 37 45

Orbiter OV-I02 Aug-72 Feb-75 Oct-77 Mar-79 Apt-81

Columbia 0 29 61 79 104

Orbiter OV-IO5 Aug-87 N/A N/A Apt-91 May-92

Endeavor 0 45 57

Average 0 17.6 39.3 63.25 79.75

Average Without OW-102 12 28.5 58 71.6

Template Menu }{ Previous Menu I{ Print l_-i-_

Figure 3-1 STEM Provides Schedule Templates for a

Variety of Space Missions

Aerospace pro-

gram costs and sched-

ules are tightly coupled

to each other, and both

are strongly dependent

on technical require-

ments. However, the

parametric linking of

cost and schedules has

always been a rather dif-

ficult task. This is due in

part to the fact that costdata tends to break down

into various levels of

hardware end items and

system type functions,

while schedules are sub-

divided into program

milestones and other cal-

endar related events. These two different breakouts are not easily crosswalked to allow cost to be

shown on schedules, or vice versa, with any high fidelity of detail.

SAIC made much progress in this difficult linking area in the currently operational, automated

MECM model. Costs werre time-phased based on actual microgravity historical schedule milestone

data which we collected, normalized, and developed into individual TERs for microgravity programs

of varying complexity. While the average development and unit production schedules are known, judg-

ment must be applied as to the distribution of cost within the given time period. This was typically done

at the subsystem level using beta spreading functions.

Non-optimized schedules definitely impose cost penalties that should also be assessed. SAIC

accounted for this phenomena in MECM through establishment of a curve relating cost savings and

penalties to schedule duration in terms of percent from an established CER-output cost. This curve was

based on relationships from commercially available parametric models. We found that microgravity

cost CER outputs were tied to a schedule which normally exceeded the optimum schedule by 20 per-cent.

Cost and schedule relationships have also been included in the automated NASCOM-Lite Cost

Model which was developed under this contract. In that model, the STEM templates are called up on

the screen and the appropriate one selected for the type of program. Time-phasing is then based on that

template using user-determined beta distributions at the subsystem level. This model does not have the

schedule-driven cost penalty feature of MECM.

In the last months of the CSATD contract, an additional automated cost-optimizing schedule

13

tool was programmed called SACOM (Schedule And Cost Optimization Model). This model uses, as

input, the costs developed in NASCOM-Lite (or NASCOM Cost Model when operational at contract

end). It allows the individual major program elements, with their associated costs, to be moved about

on the overall schedule until a program funding profile is obtained which best matches the expected

program budget and minimizes cost and manpower peaks and valleys. Limited program logic was built

in to ensure the integrity of the program is maintained while these schedules are moved. For example,

the software will not allow system tests to occur before the system test hardware is built, or schedule

compression beyond reasonable expectations. This model operates at the subsystem level and provides

graphic display of funding, overlaid on the schedule, as well as, numerical output. Preliminary cost

penalties associated with non-optimum schedules were incorporated in the SACOM model.

SAIC developed time-phased generic logic networks utilizing several different techniques. We

used the powerful PC-based ARTEMIS 7000 software and hardware including a 36 inch roll-fed 8 pen

plotter to support PP02 requirements under the contract. We have also used "Finest Hour" in the prepa-

ration and development of generic logic networks for the generic unmanned launch vehicles and the

Laser Beamed Power Study during the contract. We also developed a logic network for the "NASA

Approval Budget and Procurement Cycles". In addition, we developed schedule logic that tied the

NASA project planning activities with OMB circular A-109 and the budget cycle. Microsoft Project

has been used to develop logic networks for other MSFC projects as has Open Plan. Each of the

software systems has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. SAIC has developed "work arounds"

for many of these including color coding and hand manipulation of the network to avoid over laid lines

or lines underrunning unrelated activity boxes. Time-phasing of major logic networks was accom-

plished by indicating time durations on the activity boxes.

3.2 Program Planning

SAIC prepared program planning documentation and reports relating to project management

functions, management topics, and other program planning related subjects as requested by PP02. For

example, SAIC prepared draft implementation plans for the LUTE Project. This plan was then used by

the LUTE Project team to finalize their planned approach that was submitted to NASA Headquarters

for approval. Other examples of program planning documentation developed during the contract in-

clude several seminars (currently called guidelines) prepared for use by PP02. Some topics that we

were researched, developed, and presented are Project Plans, WBS, Management Directives, Project

Planning, and NASA Agreements.

Another important program planning task that was accomplished during the contract was the develop-

ment of Phase A and B data requirements packages. SAIC developed packages for both in-house and

contracted Phase A and Phase B studies. The packages were developed to be consistent with Phase C/

D requirements which were the responsibility of MSFC's Science and Engineering Directorate.

SAIC has a great deal of overall experience and involvement in the program management functions.

Our unique NASA experience covers the total gamut from early NASA programs of the 1960s to the

latest NASA programs and projects. We understand which functions and topics are important. We have

prepared many handbooks, guidelines, and presentations in the past and will continue to do so. We

know the basic NASA Directives System and how changes are made to it. We also understand what is

needed and how to get prior practices and other documentation that we will use to prepare new guide-

lines and presentations. Our personnel have established working relationships with many of the current

14

andformerNASA programandprojectmanagers,andareexperiencedin interviewingandobtaininginformation from them.We alsohavetechnicalwriting skills, graphiccapabilities,and presentationtalentsthat will bebroughtto bearin thedevelopmentof presentations.

III. ADDITIONAL TASKING

In addition to the mainline tasks accomplished for the Program Development directorate of

MSFC, three in-scope tasks were performed under the contract for other NASA elements. These were

the development of the Microgravity Experiments Cost Model for the MSFC Microgravity Projects

Office; the development of the Ground Operations Cost Model for the Kennedy Space Center (KSC);

and the calibration of the PRICE Systems Cost Model for NASA users, directed by the NASA Head-

quarters Comptroller Office. Some of the synergistic elements of these activities have already been

mentioned in the discussion of contract accomplishments for MSFC, but specific work performed is

described in the following paragraphs.

1.0 Ground Operations Cost Model (GOCM)

SAIC completely reworked the old GOCM that had been developed for KSC by another con-

tractor. The original model would only estimate Shuttle ground operations and lacked documentation,

flexibility, operating speed, simplicity, and overall credibility. The model was reprogrammed by SAIC

as a menu-driven spreadsheet model that estimates facilities, schedules, manpower and costs at many

levels and provides reporting, charting, supporting data bases, and documentation. It will estimate up

to two different type vehicles in flow at KSC, which is another major enhancement. The model will

estimate ground operations cost of over 80 different combinations of current and future launch vehicle

elements including expendable, partially reusable, and reusable concepts.

SAIC totally rebuilt the data base using newer Shuttle actuals than were in the old model. A

more uniform and inclusive WBS was also established. From those actuals was extrapolated an exten-

sive "knowledge base" for a wide range of vehicle stages and elements which were scaled from the

Shuttle baseline. This knowledge base was developed utilizing engineering judgment and knowledge

of the various new vehicle configurations and requirements. When two different type vehicles are in

flow simultaneously, synergism of vehicle elements or stages is accounted for and common use of

facilities, if appropriate, is likewise considered in the resulting cost and schedule estimates.

This model and Users Guide have been delivered to KSC as of the contract end and the GOCM

has been in actual use at KSC for some several months. The model has been beta tested at KSC and the

results have been excellent.

2.0 PRICE Calibration for NASA Users

SAIC was requested to support efforts of the NASA Headquarters Comptroller Office and

•PRICE Systems in calibrating the commercially available PRICE Cost Model for NASA users. This

effort had been underway with PRICE Systems prior to our involvement but little headway was being

made. SAIC's efforts were primarily to collect, normalize, and provide historic cost and technical data

on NASA projects to PRICE; to interview PRICE users at all NASA centers and determine their needs

and concerns relative to using PRICE as a cost estimating tool; and to write briefs and reports to be

distributed to all NASA PRICE users on topics relative to calibration procedures.

SAIC developed a survey form, interfaced with NASA centers by visit, telecon, or through the

15

surveyform anddeterminedwhothePRICEuserswereateachNASA installation,what their uniqueneedswere,how calibrationwascurrentlybeingaccomplished,andwhat theyconsideredto beprob-lemsor shortcomingswith the PRICEmodel.This effort resultedin two report deliverableswhichweredistributedNASA-wide:"GE-PRICEEnhancements--SurveyResults"and"GE-PRICEEnhance-ments-SelectedSupportToolsandMethodologies".

SAIC researched,wrote,andpublishedNASA-wide two TechnicalBriefs: "The DataCollec-tionProcess"and"PRICEScheduleAdjustmentsto ReflectaNASA Environment".Thesebriefspro-vide NASA PRICEusersinformationandguidanceasto ways to bestutilize thePRICE model. Inaddition,SAICcollected,normalized,documented,andprovidedPRICESystemswith subsystemleveltechnicaldescriptionsonAMPTE-CCE,CRRES,COBE,HEAO-1,HST-SSM,Lan'dsat-1,GRO,Ex-ternalTank,ERBS,GalelileoOrbiter& Probe,Magellan,andUARS.Thesedatawereto allow PRICESystemsto attemptto calibratetheir databaseto reflectNASA projectsandtiecoststo thesetechnicalparameters.SAIC alsoproposedasimplified,subsystemlevelapproachusingNASCOMdatafor cali-bratingNASA projects.Dataandmethodologyto exercisethisapproachis plannedto bedevelopedinafollow-on SAIC effort for NASA.

3.0 Microgravity Experiments Cost Model (MECM)

SAIC developed and delivered an entirely new cost model for the Microgravity Projects Office.

This was a two year effort which ended June 30, 1994 and included cost, schedule and technical data

collection, analysis and normalization; WBS development; data stratification, regression and CER

development; computer model structuring and development; model analysis and beta testing; model

and data base documentation and Users Guide preparation; and actual microgravity project cost esti-

mating.

The initial data collection efforts centered on MSFC microgravity projects, but was expanded

to include JPL and LeRC microgravity projects as well. Data at varying levels of detail on a total of 52

microgravity experiments was collected. Because of the need for low level data, an additional 75 space-

craft data points were added to the data base. After normalization, the data was matrixed against 74

different technical, schedule or cost parameters. A standardized WBS consisting of seven subsystems

and 21 components was also established and all data was displayed against this WBS. Statistical re-

gressions were run and CERs were established for DDT&E and flight unit costs utilizing various tech-

nical parameters including weight, volume, power, temperature range, etc. The total applicable data

base was used to establish each CER slope, but two curves, spacecraft and microgravity, were devel-

oped so that microgravity's lower costs could be accounted for.

The automated cost model was developed in a user-friendly manner with Help buttons, warning

messages, a straight forward estimating approach, and excellent documentation. Both IBM and Macintosh

versions of the model were developed.

A schedule estimating feature was added to the model which would accept user schedule inputs

or generate its own schedule based on microgravity historical data. In addition, a cost penalty/benefit

for schedule adjustments calculation was programmed into the model so that overly optimistic or pes-

simistic schedules impact the resulting cost estimate.

Finally, a cost risk feature was developed which provides risk profiles and contingency alloca-

16

tion for all appropriatecostelementsin anestimate.Theanalysisconsiderstherisk associatedwith theCERsthemselvesandtherisk associatedwith thetechnicalinputsto theCERs.

The automatedmodel, documenteddatabase,andusersmanualhaveall beendeliveredtoMSFCandthemodelhasbeenin usefor severalmonths.Trainingclasseson theuseof themodelwerealsoconductedby SAIC for anumberof MSFCmicrogravityprojectmanagersandbusinessmanage-mentpersonnelat thetimeof modeldeliveryto MSFC.

17

NA_O.J_SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY AUTHORIZATION (DAA). • "_ , , ; ,

TO be initiataO by the responsib4e NASA Pro_ct Officer, Techn_.Aal Monitor, or other llp,_ n::_ 3ata (CASI Use Only)

NASA official for all presentations, reports, papers, and proceedings that contain scientific _ Onginat Control Noand technical information. Explanations am on the back of this torm and are presented in D Modifiedgreater detail in NHB 2200.2, "NASA Scientific and Techn¢,al Information Handbook." Dllte ]. _)--5 --9 4

I. D_cUMENT/PR_JECT_DENT_F_CAT_N_n_rm_b_n_n_in_nr_p_rtd_cument_I_npagesh_u_dn_t be repellNKI except title,.Olltll and contract number]T_: Cost and Schedule Analytical Technlques Development - Final Report

Author(s):

Oflginlting NASA OfganlZlltlon: MSFC

P,r_m_0Oromzll_on<itd_,rem) Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)

con,r_o,a_n,_.g._ Numb+,(,)NAS8-38784

Documon!Num_r(s)NASA CR-196548 DocumentDII,,:11/30/94

(For prmlentatK)ns or externlHy put)iished documents, enter ippmpnllts intormlltion on the intllnded publicllt:on such as name. place, and dale of conference, penodiClll or Journal title.

or book fitM and publisher:

These documents must be routed to NASA Head(lueNem. International Affairs DMS_On to( d_rovsL (See Section VII))

11. AVAILABILITY CATEGORY /

Security Cless_iClltion: t-] Secret r-I Secret RD 1-1Corffidenttld [] Confidential RD _"Unclssethed

[] ITARC°ntr°lled[]D°¢um4mtEAR" Documentl _ in this _ must be muted to NASA Heedqullrlers Intornitional Affairs Division /or II)provlll .... _ . . "c': ___ _:

NASA Roltnctld Distribution Document /"

[] FEDD [] Limited Di_'ibubon [] S_L_I Cond_one-See _ III _:"// /

Document ¢lisck_ng in invention

rl Docunlent8 rnMked in this block mum be withhek_ _ 11114141141until _x rno_ths have tdapssd sflor submission Of this form, unless I different releasedots is osUd_ihed by the I_Dprmte couture4. (See Se¢tK_ IX).

Put_ Ava,_m_Document _KJ_

iSq=1_b_ClyIvmMble documents must be .nchMmitled ind may not be llxp¢.rl-o_ntrof it i_t,butN)n docurnorlts. _ i/,/ Z_mco_" []"_'ed Conc: PPOI/D. _'. Bishop _/_*/J_e _'_----

III. SPECIAL CONDITIONS

Check one or morn of I_I _91ioal)le boxes in each of (,,) llnd (b) Is the bll_s for speCild restricted distrit)ubon If the "Specml Conditions" box under NASA

Restrv_ed DisVtbubo_ Document in Section II is che¢ta_. Guidelines ere Wowded on reverse male of form,

a, T_s document cont_us:

O ForeKpn 0o_mmeflt infor'nmbon [] Commem_ pmOuct t_t or ewdu_tJon re_uits [] Preflmlnary infom_bon [] Informalmn sublect to sbeosl contnlct provmion

Orbs--Speedyb. Che¢_ one Of the following limitations lul Ik01_Opmlte:

[] U.S. Gov_rnmem ogen¢les sn(I U.S, Govern•Mat a0ency conuliCto_ only [] NASA cor_sntors ind U,S, Government agenc_s only [] U.S+ Government Igonoes only

[] NASA perlonnel ind NASA contmctorl only [] NASA. Ix•runnel o_y [] Avlllleofe only w_h iko0rmmJof iseuing office;

IV. BLANKET RELEASE (OPTIONAL)

All '_:_Jment_ _ under the following ¢ontract_gmnt/_ number

",he blanket releue sumonzatlon gramed _:Dim)

[] R4m_nd_¢l - Future docurmmll must hav_ Itm'N_lull Ivlitleb_lny luthoctz_tionl,

may be Woce_ed all Cl,4du_ in Seclons II snd III.

[] Modified - I.Jmitatione for ell documents processed in the STI system under the b_anket

rele_um |houkl be c_ng_KI to contorm to I_od_ ss checked in Secbon II.

PROJECT OFFICER/TECHNICAL MONITOR

M. R. Naderi PP03 _P_. /?, __" '£-_--+_Nmme of Protect Offmer/-mchncal Mon_or Offi¢_ Code S_gnoture Data

Blanket authorization NASAV,. PROGRAM OFFICE REVIEW _ [] _ot _o,_ -- nuqrs.CODE M Letter dated 06-14-94.

lyped Name Of Progrlun _ _tive Program OffK:e lind Code S_re DSto

VII. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION REVIEW

D Olin, 0omuU¢ _lem_me i_nmem_on _1. 0 _ ¢o_rolled Mmlt=t_on is not _o_11¢_1_.

O Fore,In publlcaboNp_ app_mv_, [] The foflowlngExpo_ oo_ limitabon (IT_R) Is m_gned to this document:

rnF.xponoommaedmmamonis m_=musd

Internlt_nal Aflm/rs D_v. I=lep_m_th_ Title Dire

VIII+ EXPIRATION OF REVIEWTIME

Tbe docum_m is bethg rel_NuNKI In accordance m'th _ m,aitib|llty _ and limitation cP4Oked th Seclkon II imc_ flo obj_--t/_n m r_MKI tram i1_ ProgramOffloe w#hln 20 bays Of sulxnlssk)n, is soecK_ed by NHB 2200.2, imd approval by the tnternaUonel Affairs Dhdmo_ is r_ _.

Name & Tlbe Off_e Code

NO_: Th_ relene Wocedum cannot be mNKI wtth doc_rmmts dee_nated ms _ Controlled Documentl, confl¢lmce _ntatlo_l or Io_ pul_d¢_tions.

Da_

IX. DOCUMENTS DISCLOSING AN INVEN_'_ON

& Thls ¢locum_m me_/be mkm=KI o_Da_

b, The docurnem was procemm_ onDme

I

Paten( or Intellectual P,3perW Counsel

• k_ i_on_moe w_n _ II Ind Ill i_ ipp_.able. NASA CASI

Det_

Dete

CF427/MAY 92 (REVI